ad-blocking

[limpid]

Quote

http://www.androidauthority.com/three-uk-to-block-mobile-ads-674411/

Advertisements are a part of online life, but some are clearly more tolerable than others. Three UK and Three Italy are taking a stand against ads and are to become the first carriers in Europe to block “excessive and irrelevant mobile ads” on their networks.

Looks like I'll be blocking visitors from three then :(

[PompeyVillan]

I guess they plan to use it as a selling point but I don't see why it's necessary for a carrier.

[Davkaus]

I'll be cancelling if I can't opt out. I don't want my ISP or mobile carrier manipulating my traffic at all, it's completely unacceptable.

Having said that, I have no problem with blocking ads, especially on mobile, ads on mobile that are full screen, or that launch the Play store can **** off.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Davkaus

[limpid]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Having said that, I have no problem with blocking ads, especially on mobile, ads on mobile that are full screen, or that launch the Play store can **** off.

How do you propose to pay for the web sites that you use? Or are you just hoping that someone else will pick up the tab?

This isn't a dig at you personally, I'm genuinely interested in how people who ad-block expect the sites they use to get funded.

[Davkaus]

If I had a good answer for that, I'd be an incredibly wealthy man. Ideally selling items and services would work out better than just ad space. Have you considered Villatalk mugs?

For me, blocking ads just comes down to security, far too many unscrupulous advertisers have pissed in the pool and ruined it for everyone by selling ads that are phony download ads, or having poor practices that lead to malicious code being run through their ads. For my favourite sites I give them a chance and whitelist, but one strike, and they're right back to being adblocked. 

Browsing on mobile is especially terrible. Most sites felt the outrage years ago and stopped with the full page ads, intrusive pop ups, etc, but on mobile this still happens all of the time. I had the Play store autolaunch on the download page for shitty apps at least a couple of times a week before I ran all of my mobile data through my VPN.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Davkaus

[limpid]

5 hours ago, Davkaus said:

If I had a good answer for that, I'd be an incredibly wealthy man. Ideally selling items and services would work out better than just ad space. Have you considered Villatalk mugs?

Wed have to sell a lot of mugs and you'd need to buy them every month.

5 hours ago, Davkaus said:

For me, blocking ads just comes down to security, far too many unscrupulous advertisers have pissed in the pool and ruined it for everyone by selling ads that are phony download ads, or having poor practices that lead to malicious code being run through their ads. For my favourite sites I give them a chance and whitelist, but one strike, and they're right back to being adblocked. 

Or you could pay to remove the ads on your favourite sites which offer such an option. Your answer does appear to be that you expect someone else to pay your tab.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

On 2/20/2016 at 12:22, limpid said:

How do you propose to pay for the web sites that you use? Or are you just hoping that someone else will pick up the tab?

This isn't a dig at you personally, I'm genuinely interested in how people who ad-block expect the sites they use to get funded.

If it's a site I like I'll generally pause my ad-blocker when reminded, but usually leave it on to stop the many number of ads on other tabs.

When content blocked I leave the site unless it's interesting, so a lot of the emphasis is put on the website itself.
If a site you visit doesn't meet your expectations both in terms of function or content you might be inclined to leave the blocker on or not visit properly. As an example I always answer FT questions, and will unpause ad-blocking on streaming sites.

I'd imagine there are a fair few ways to make things easier for advertising on sites, such as an agreement on the type of ad solutions which wouldn't be blocked, a limit on the amount or a website review system. All of this would cost money to set up but that's where organisations such as the ISPA could be involved.

I don't run a website with ads so it doesn't cause me too much bother, but if I did I might be more inclined to think of solutions which could and perhaps should come from my end.
Ad-blockers exist because websites became too add heavy, with obtrusive ads making them even more useful and fake sites multiplying the annoyance. If you're not a site which abuses the ad process perhaps you (not you specifically) should be using that to your advantage.

[limpid]

2 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

If it's a site I like I'll generally pause my ad-blocker when reminded, but usually leave it on to stop the many number of ads on other tabs.

Out of interest, do you have VT in your ad block allow list? I just wonder where VT sits based on the rest of your message.

Small websites that you visit usually don't have time to both provide interesting content and also filter all the advertising networks manually. If these sites aren't paying their way they'll simply disappear. Tour imagination is wrong by the way, there are no networks where you get complete control over the ads which are sent. Google are about the best for this, but they are most draconian in terms of dictating the content and what's acceptable (no swearing, no revealing pictures, no discussion of criminal actions, etc, etc, with almost no appeals).

You don't mention any alternatives where you actually pay something to the sites you use instead of ads; is this simply a non-starter for you?

PS. What is/are "FT questions"? And what is a "website review system"?

Quote

I don't run a website with ads so it doesn't cause me too much bother, but if I did I might be more inclined to think of solutions which could and perhaps should come from my end.

This is my I'm asking  Currently people logged into VT get fewer ads than guests and all the more obtrusive ads should only appear to guests. Unfortunately I'm at the mercy of what ads get sent by the networks and they in turn at at the mercy of the people paying the bills so sometimes rogue adverts get added.

We've also had cases where networks have injected their own "play store redirects" into our pages. We know it was the networks as the same users on the same devices were only getting the ads on mobile data and not on wifi. It's easy for users to blame the sites, so they do. It's not always in the control of those sites.

 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

6 hours ago, limpid said:

Out of interest, do you have VT in your ad block allow list? I just wonder where VT sits based on the rest of your message.

Small websites that you visit usually don't have time to both provide interesting content and also filter all the advertising networks manually. If these sites aren't paying their way they'll simply disappear. Tour imagination is wrong by the way, there are no networks where you get complete control over the ads which are sent. Google are about the best for this, but they are most draconian in terms of dictating the content and what's acceptable (no swearing, no revealing pictures, no discussion of criminal actions, etc, etc, with almost no appeals).

You don't mention any alternatives where you actually pay something to the sites you use instead of ads; is this simply a non-starter for you?

PS. What is/are "FT questions"? And what is a "website review system"?

This is my I'm asking  Currently people logged into VT get fewer ads than guests and all the more obtrusive ads should only appear to guests. Unfortunately I'm at the mercy of what ads get sent by the networks and they in turn at at the mercy of the people paying the bills so sometimes rogue adverts get added.

We've also had cases where networks have injected their own "play store redirects" into our pages. We know it was the networks as the same users on the same devices were only getting the ads on mobile data and not on wifi. It's easy for users to blame the sites, so they do. It's not always in the control of those sites.

 

I didn't know I could have a block list. I just use the pause button. It's only recently that ads have started to annoy me a lot.
I use Chrome for 90% of browsing and Firefox for sites I regularly visit. I visit VT on both but have no ad blocker on firefox. My motivation and conscience decides whether I pause the block.

I have been known to donate to sites, not for a while, but if it's a forum for example I think quality interaction is as important as a financial contribution. I don't think I'd pay for sites, there's enough info out there to avoid that. Though who knows, the internet is an evolving beast.
I don't pay for streaming movies, music or anything else. And only have Prime because I got a free trial for 6 months.

FT - Financial Times, sorry, FT wasn't very helpful. In order to read the content they ask you a question. Some other websites won't let you see anything unless you stop blocking their ads. They're usually boring sites.
A review system could work by individual websites being scanned for ads and if they pass a set criteria wouldn't be blocked by providers. It would need to be adopted industry wide.

I don't know how the whole ad system works but I'm not sure enough has been done on the part of website owners to manage the concerns felt by their users, but then I'm a policy sort so perhaps I just look at things in a different manner.

Edited February 28, 2016 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[limpid]

Thanks for answering. I still have no idea what concerns people have and pretty much no tools to do anything about it. If ad revenue keeps falling while visits stay constant this site will close.